Friday, November 9, 2012

After
the death of Sarah, Avraham turns his attention to finding a wife for
Yitzchak. He is quite insistent that this wife be from his land and his
birthplace, and not from the "daughters of Canaan". What is the reason
for this opposition? Perhaps there was an assumption that their
culture was a corrupt one and that this would shape the character of any
potential wife for Yitzchak. Alternatively, or additionally, one can
argue that Avraham is particularly interested in those of his homeland.
This may be because they were more spiritually in sync with Avraham -
remember that Terach began the trek to Canaan before Avraham, and
without the benefit of the Divine command - or because theirs was a more
moral culture, as evidenced by Rivka, Lavan's future actions not
withstanding.

I
would like to suggest that it was something else about the culture of
Haran that attracted Avraham, a profound way in which the family
structure differed in these two places. Let us start with the concern
of Avraham's servant: "Perhaps the woman will not desire to follow me to
this land. Should I return your son to the land which you came from?"
(24:5). This concern is understandable, but the specifics raise certain
questions. Notice that the concern is that the woman will not want to
return to the land, not that her father will not allow her to do so.
Later laws in the Torah make it clear that it is the father who controls
and speaks for his daughter, and yet the father is not mentioned here,
only the woman. Also notice that there seems to be a possibility that
the husband will go to live with the wife. This is quite strange, as in
patriarchal societies, which was the norm in those times, it would
always be the woman who would be taken into the husband's home.
Certainly there must have been exceptions, but the more natural question
would have been: "If she refuses, can I then find a wife from somewhere
else?" It seems that Avraham's servant knew something about that
society which shaped his particular concerns, concerns how the woman
would act and what she would demand.

The
place of women in Haran comes up again when the servant arrives there
and interacts with Rivka and her family. After Rivka passes the test
with the watering of the servant and the camels, the servant asks her
"Whose daughter are you?" to which she responds: "I am the daughter of
Betuel, who is the son of Milkah, whom she bore to Nachor." What was
that again? This isn't how we are used to hearing genealogies and
family attributions. The standard is father-son. Avraham, Yitzchak,
Yaakov. "These are the generations of Yitzchak the son of Avraham,
Avraham begat Yitzchak," is what the verse (25:19) states. Rivka's
answer should have been "I am the daughter of Betuel, the son of
Nachor." What is Milkah's name doing here?

Milkah
actually showed up at the end of last week's parsha as well. "After
these things it was told to Avraham saying, behold Milkah has given
birth to Nachor your brother..." (22:20). Why not "Nachor has had born
to him the following children..."? Why the focus on the mother? It is
possible that this is a special case, that Milkah was an important
personage. But what seems more likely is that we are encountering a
different society. Not a patriarchy, where the family structure is
father-son, but a matriarchy, where the family structure involves the
mother. (I owe this insight to the book "Throughout your Generations
Forever," by Nancy Jay.)

To
be clear: this does not mean that the mother was the head of the
household or held political power. There is doubt whether any true
matriarchies, societies with women at the head, have ever existed.
Perhaps a better term is a matrifocal society, or one of matrilineal
descent. In such societies it was the men who primarily held the
power. But the women had more power, and they defined the family
structure. The question was not who was the father - the answer to
which is always somewhat in doubt - but rather who was the mother. The
head of the household would not be the (presumed) father, but rather the
mother's brother (on her mother's side), or an older brother. Thus,
while a man was at the head, the structuring around the mother ensured
that the family was truly all related to one another. It removed the
anxiety around paternity. (For a nice example of this anxiety, see the
Rashi on the verse "Avraham begat to Yitzchak").

We
can thus understand why Rivka identifies herself as the granddaughter
of Milkah. The servant, however, when he repeated the story, reframed
Rivka's answer in his own cultural norms: "And she said, 'I am the
daughter of Betuel the son of Nachor, whom Milkah bore to him.'"
(24:47). The servant speaks the language of a patriarchal culture, and
mentions Milkah as an aside. And, anyway, Milkah bore Betuel "to"
Nachor. In the servant's version, Betuel is Nachor's child, not
Milkah's.

Now,
if this is the case, we should have expected to hear in Rivka's answer
the mention of her mother, or at least her mother's brother, as well.
Perhaps that would have been too confusing for a stranger from a
patriarchal society, who anyway needed to reframe her response. But if
we didn't hear about them now, we will hear about them soon. For what
does Rivka do after she leaves Avraham's servant? "And the young woman
ran and she told her mother's household according to these events."
(24:28). Mother's household? Isn't it the father's household? Rashi
notes this problem and responds that this is not a "household", but
rather a special room for her mother to sit, and that Rivka, like all
daughters, ran first to her mother before her father. The simple sense
of the verse, however, is otherwise: it was her mother's household, not
her father's. And consider this exchange: "Does your father's house have a place for us to stay?", "And she said to him, 'We have much straw and fodder, and also a place to sleep." (24:24-25). This was a matriarchal family and the father was not in the picture.

Rivka's
father, Betuel, is actually quite invisible in this entire episode.
Who is it that runs to the servant? Not Betuel, but Lavan, Rivka's
brother. Now notice what happens when the servant completes his story:
"And Lavan and Betuel responded, 'From God has this matter come!'"
(24:50). Why is Lavan, the brother, mentioned before Betuel, the
father? Rashi's answer: "Lavan was a wicked man, and he jumped to
respond before his father." Such might be true in a patriarchal
society, but in a matriarchal society, in Haran, the reason is clear: It
is the brother that heads the family, not the father. And notice to
whom the servant gives the gifts. Not to Betuel, the father, but to
Rivka's "brother and mother." And notice, again, who makes the final
decision. It is the brother and the mother: "And her brother and her
mother said, 'Let the lass stay with us a year or ten months..."
(24:55). Rashi again asks, "And where was Betuel". His answer - Betuel
was going to refuse and an angel came and smote him dead. The simpler
answer is, that in a matriarchal society such as this, even if Betuel
were around, it was not his decision to make. He was, for all intents
and purposes, invisible.

The
same can be seen when Lavan and Rivka's mother send Rivka away. It is
they two, not Betuel, who send her away, and the verse relates that:
"they sent Rivka, their sister..." (24:59), not their daughter. Similarly when they blessed her, they said: "Our sister,
you shall be for thousands of myriads...". (24:60). It is Lavan who
heads the family, and Rivka is "their", the family's, sister, not its
daughter.

And
this brings us back to the servant's concerns. Avram's servant was
concerned that in such a society the woman would stay put and Yitzchak
would be asked to relocate. And he was mostly concerned about what the
woman - not her father - would say. For in such societies, women had a
voice, and what they would say could matter. And, lo and behold, we
find that the brother and mother gave the final decision to Rivka. "Let
us call the lass, and ask her decision.". (24:57).

Perhaps
this is why Avraham was so insistent on the servant going to Haran.
Avraham wanted to make sure that Yitzchak's wife was a woman who had her
own voice. It is worth noting that it is from the episode of asking
Rivka's opinion that the Sages learn that although a father can marry
off his underage daughter, he is forbidden to do so, and he must wait
until she is an adult and can choose her own husband. (Kiddushin 41a).
Avram wanted to bring in this voice from the women of Haran, and the
Sages made sure to bring in this voice as well. It is this voice, the
woman's voice, that must be heard.

Avraham
had learned this lesson well: "Everything that Sarah tells you, listen
to her voice" (21:12). Sarah, also from Haran, did what was necessary
to ensure the survival of her family. And for this family, for this new
religion, to succeed, it would require not just the men, but the women
as well, women like Sarah, women with a voice. Women like Sarah and
women like Rivka. As we will find out in next week's parasha, it was
Rivka who, using her strength and her voice, and now finding a way to
operate in a patriarchal society, followed in Sarah's ways and acted to
ensure the continuity of the Jewish family.

Learning continued in full force this week, with years 1 and 2 continuing through all the various aspects of she'hiyah and chazara,
leaving food on, and returning food to, the fire, and with years 3 and 4
delving into the things which, because of their importance, do not
become batel, annulled in a mixture. This latter topic connects
directly to the issue of bugs in vegetables, a topic which we will
explore in detail next week.

On Monday, I had the wonderful opportunity to participate in a tremendous yom iyyun and
rabbinical get-together which was the brainchild of Rabbi Uri Topolosky
(YCT '05) of Beth Israel Congregation in New Orleans and his colleague,
Rabbi Ethan Linden, of the Shir Chadash, a Conservative synagogue in
New Orleans. Rabbi Topolosky and Rabbi Linden brought together a group
of their colleagues to spend a day and half in learning, connecting, and
community building. There was wonderful peer teaching that took place
both Sunday night and Tuesday morning, and I had the privilege of
leading the learning on Monday - a day-long marathon on the topic of dina di'malkhuta dina,
the law of the kingdom is the law, an appropriate topic for the day
before election day. It was wonderful to be a part of this event, and
I left with a real high, energized by the power of rabbis getting
together, across the denominational divide, for serious talmud Torah and just to be able to learn, share, and connect with one another.

We
have many Mazal Tovs this week. A hearty Mazal Tov to Daniel
Silverstein (YCT 2015) on his engagement to Karin Fleisch this week.
May they be zokeh to be boneh bayit ne'eman bi'Yisrael. A Mazel Tov to Rabbi Marc (YCT 2005) and Sarah Gitler on the birth of a baby girl this week. Shetizku li'gadlah li'Torah li'chuppah u'li'ma'asim tovim.
And a Mazal Tov to Rabbi Dan Vinik (YCT 2011) on his appointment as
Rabbi at Temple Zion, a Modern Orthodox synagogue in Long Beach, NY.
May he be zokeh to lead his community to grow in Torah, avodah, and ma'asim tovim.

Finally,
this week I gave the third of my lecture series on Jew and non-Jew.
This week we dealt with the challenging topic of halakhot in the civil
and criminal realm that distinguish between Jews and non-Jews. We
looked at the halakhot that afford different treatment when it comes to
matters or person and property, and we then explored different halakhic
strategies that have been used over the centuries to minimize or
eliminate this difference. Due to the nor'easter, the shiur did not
happen at the yeshiva, but it was broadcast live via YouTube. For those
who missed it, it can be viewed, with the source sheet, on YouTube here.
Stay tuned for next week's shiur, on Avoda Zara and Other Religions,
which will be taking place at YCT on Wednesday, Nov 14, from 8:00-9:00,
and can be viewed on YouTube live, at this link.